The fact that we saw the traffic in the streets below complexly packed just before the buildings started falling down confirms this I think.

Really, the most distracting thing during the final fight is that moments earlier we saw a huge area around where the world engine was completely devastated, like someone dropped a nuke on it or something, but during the final fight whenever we saw the city or any people they were going about like business as usual. The fact that there were people at the train station like it was a normal day's commute, and not either completely empty or absolutely packed with refugees, was super out of place.

I'm hoping they go for a route similar to Public Enemies, so a murder with Superman in the wrong place wrong time making himself look guilty? If it was me writing it, I'd do a murder of an important political figurehead, someone who'd been supportive of Superman before he died. I'd get a merc like Deathstroke for example to do it after being hired by Luthor. He makes the murder look like Superman did it, preferably a neck snap? and burning of the room he was in complete with the house of El symbol burned into a wall. The reasoning for the murder of this figurehead would of course be a power play for Lex to eventually go onto become President of the U.S.A..

That would be cool, only I think lex probably has to be set up already in B/S for him to already dislike Superman

__________________
Quote:
As the poet John Dryden once had it: "Beware the fury of a patient man." Or Batman.

The fact that we saw the traffic in the streets below complexly packed just before the buildings started falling down confirms this I think.

Really, the most distracting thing during the final fight is that moments earlier we saw a huge area around where the world engine was completely devastated, like someone dropped a nuke on it or something, but during the final fight whenever we saw the city or any people they were going about like business as usual. The fact that there were people at the train station like it was a normal day's commute, and not either completely empty or absolutely packed with refugees, was super out of place.

Yea I thought the same thing, but then I thought maybe they were just trying to get out of metropolis

__________________
Quote:
As the poet John Dryden once had it: "Beware the fury of a patient man." Or Batman.

In a study done exclusively for BuzzFeed, scientist and longtime disaster expert Charles Watson worked with his team at Watson Technical Consulting to model and anticipate the damage done to Metropolis, both in the form of human casualties and monetary cost. They ran analyses of the World Engine ground zero in Central Manhattan and central Chicago, finding that the major damage would be a mile in diameter.

WTC estimates that, in the days after the attack, the known damage would already be stunning: 129,000 known killed, over 250,000 missing (most of whom would have also died), and nearly a million injured.

The impact, WTC writes, “seemed to be similar to an air burst from a 20kt nuclear explosion in terms of shock effects, but without the radiation or thermal effects.”

In terms of the strictly physical damage done to the city, the initial estimate is $700 billion. To put that in context, 9/11’s physical damage cost $55 billion, with a further economic impact of $123 billion.

Overall, WTC estimates that the damage would be $2 trillion.

That's what Snyder showed on screen, and that's what they were going for when making the movie. They said that they wanted Superman to first show up in the world in a time of tremendous death and destruction, so that he would be like a Greek God to the people of the DC-verse:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Snyder, The Director of Man of Steel

I wanted the movie to have a mythological feeling ... In ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters.

With this in mind, we can better understand the thematic meaning of Jonathan Kent's sacrifice. Jonathan Kent told his son that he should only open up to the world when the world was ready, and if he had come out as a hero when the tornado happened, only a handful of lives (possibly just one) would have been saved, which would have been unmythological. By allowing his father to die an extremely painful and scary death, Clark Kent emerged to the world in the midst of a disaster and mass death, and he could thus be a mythology to the people of Metropolis and Earth.

That's what Snyder showed on screen, and that's what they were going for when making the movie. They said that they wanted Superman to first show up in the world in a time of tremendous death and destruction, so that he would be like a Greek God to the people of the DC-verse:

With this in mind, we can better understand the thematic meaning of Jonathan Kent's sacrifice. Jonathan Kent told his son that he should only open up to the world when the world was ready, and if he had come out as a hero when the tornado happened, only a handful of lives (possibly just one) would have been saved, which would have been unmythological. By allowing his father to die an extremely painful and scary death, Clark Kent emerged to the world in the midst of a disaster and mass death, and he could thus be a mythology to the people of Metropolis and Earth.

The problem is that the movie barely acknowledged that loss of life and Superman didn't seem all that concerned about it during or after the crisis. I mean, yeah, he was trying to stop Zod, but we never saw him reacting to the carnage around him or actively trying to minimize it or save lives. And in some cases he came off as partially responsible for it.

The problem is that the movie barely acknowledged that loss of life and Superman didn't seem all that concerned about it during or after the crisis. I mean, yeah, he was trying to stop Zod, but we never saw him reacting to the carnage around him or actively trying to minimize it or save lives. And in some cases he came off as partially responsible for it.

Also, this quote from Zack Snyder is ridiculous:

"In ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters."

Mass deaths don't symbolize disasters, they literally are disasters.

Why should they have dealt with the death and destruction at all?

Have you ever read "Superman Day of Doom"? You really should.

__________________They say "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

Snyder's mind is perverse, it fascinates me. He's clearly got a very singular vision which I feel was vastly compromised in MOS.

Take Sucker Punch. Snyder said it is a feminist female empowerment film. And the film is filled with young girls in scanty and tight fitting lingerie kicking ass with numerous cleavage shots and ass shots and crotch shots. He basically did for women here what he did for men in 300, painted a glorious almost fascist picture.

But he is a most interesting film-maker and a very different voice today. He is essential to cinema I would say.

__________________

A sense of the fundamental decencies is parcelled out unequally at birth.~ F. Scott Fitzgerald ~

Because when the hero of your movie barely reacts at all to the likely death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people it kind of makes him look like a sociopath.

And, from a broader narrative standpoint, when the movie doesn't actually address the horror of what happened, when you have characters standing around in the charred remains of the downtown area of an enormous city with all of the horror and tension of first responders standing around at a car crash where mild injuries were sustained, it rings false. That level of devastation isn't something you just shrug off, you have to acknowledge it. If the movie doesn't seem to be emotionally invested in something that serious and significant then it weakens the audience's emotional investment. Plus, if the movie doesn't really treat the carnage going on as that big of a deal, it kind of deflates the stakes and tension of the climax.

And I'm not asking for Superman to give some long winded eulogy for the lives lost at the end of the battle. That would be a little better because it would at least be trying, but it would still ring false. I'm talking about reaction shots of looks for horror on the hero's face. I'm talking about actually recognizing that civilians are dying in this attack. Show the efforts to evacuate the area, show the hero at least make a token effort to save innocent people who aren't his love interest, show characters reacting to the aftermath and being emotionally effected by what happened. Little things that address what's going on on screen and ground the movie emotionally. It may seem small but it goes a long way toward making a film feel more sincere and mature about it's subject matter.

I know people are probably sick of comparing Man of Steel to The Avengers, but I think it's worth comparing here. The final fight in The Avengers was handled much better. They did all of these little things to actually engage the seriousness of what was happening. They showed people reacting to the horror of the situation, they showed the toll it was taking on the common person, they showed the steps being taken to minimize the loss of civilian life, they showed the heroes rescuing people in the midst of the battle, and they showed the heroes actively concerned for the fate of civilians and clearly stated that keeping the fighting contained to the area that was being evacuated to minimize civilian loss of life was a very deliberate part of their strategy. By the end of the battle, everyone involved is physically and emotionally drained. They're tired, they're angry, they're defiant, and it's because they've been effected by the accumulation of everything that's gone on in the climax. Superman pretty much stays in the same place emotionally throughout the climax, and the only thing that seems to change his emotional state is when he's forced to kill Zod (which is then forgotten in the next scene).

Despite being lighter in tone, The Avengers is, in this regard, a lot more mature than Man of Steel. Man of Steel tried to be more mature by going dark, but failed to engage it's subject matter in a mature way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Have you ever read "Superman Day of Doom"? You really should.

I don't know, maybe? What is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slumcat

Take Sucker Punch. Snyder said it is a feminist female empowerment film. And the film is filled with young girls in scanty and tight fitting lingerie kicking ass with numerous cleavage shots and ass shots and crotch shots. He basically did for women here what he did for men in 300, painted a glorious almost fascist picture.

I'd argue that you can't really do that effectively, because the public perception of men and the public perception of women aren't equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slumcat

But he is a most interesting film-maker and a very different voice today. He is essential to cinema I would say.

That's not what he said. He said that Superman VS. Zod had nothing to do with the central conflict of the film, because the central conflict of the film was (or at least should have been) Superman struggling to find his place in the world and the best way to use his powers to help people responsibly. Superman's fight with Zod wasn't a resolution of the central conflict, it was tying up a loose end. A loose end that didn't even need to exist if they simply disposed of Zod with the rest of the Kryptonians via the Phantom Zone.

Seeing as Zod was the last of Clark's kind, his defeat truly cements who Clark is and who he wants to be. Also, seeing how Clark used his power to defeat Zod, Clark learned something about responsibility that comes with such power.

Could the final fight had been better integrated into the narrative? Sure. I mean, I like it how it is but I'm not going to fault others for disagreeing. But to say that the results of that conflict had nothing to do with the main conflict is a reach.

As for disposing of Zod into the PZ with the other Kryptonians, I would have felt completely robbed of not seeing Superman and Zod going head to head. I would have found it to be anti-climatic despite the PZ resolution being the climax for you.

I'd argue that you can't really do that effectively, because the public perception of men and the public perception of women aren't equal.

Yeah probably. Probably that's why 300 was a such phenomenon a global box office blockbuster smash and Sucker Punch tanked. Also maybe helped by the fact that 300 is actually a great film and Sucker Punch is merely a film with potential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

Please elaborate.

I think 300, Watchmen and Sucket Punch were extremely lurid unhinged films, and I like that. We don't see much of that today, films are safe, whereas these films swung for the fences, they were perverse, absurd, with wild invention and imagination.

I think not many people are bring such unadulterated vision to the screen these days. Maybe Lars von Trier is one and he obviously is working in a completely different register.

But I think such film-makers are doing something what not many film-makers are doing or can do.

__________________

A sense of the fundamental decencies is parcelled out unequally at birth.~ F. Scott Fitzgerald ~

Seeing as Zod was the last of Clark's kind, his defeat truly cements who Clark is and who he wants to be. Also, seeing how Clark used his power to defeat Zod, Clark learned something about responsibility that comes with such power.

The thing is, you get all of that if you have Superman and Zod fight briefly while the Phantom Zone is being activated that ends with Superman forcing Zod into the event horizon with the rest of the Kryptonians and trapping him in the Phantom Zone. Maneuvering Zod away form the event horizon so he can be around afterword for one more huge mano-a-mano fight scene doesn't serve or resolve the central conflicts of the film any better than not doing it. It's extraneous.

Also, what with the sheer amount of collateral damage during that fight that Superman doesn't even address let alone tries to do anything about, I'd say the responsibility angle is a stretch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krumm

As for disposing of Zod into the PZ with the other Kryptonians, I would have felt completely robbed of not seeing Superman and Zod going head to head. I would have found it to be anti-climatic despite the PZ resolution being the climax for you.

By that point we've already seen Superman and Zod go head to head several times. They go head to head during that sequence, when Superman crashes Zod's ship while the military is activating the Phantom Zone. Why do you think it would cheat the audience to have that confrontation during that sequence end with Zod being sent to the Phantom Zone? Why do you think having a longer one on one fight between just the two of them afterwards makes the movie stronger?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slumcat

Yeah probably. Probably that's why 300 was a such phenomenon a global box office blockbuster smash and Sucker Punch tanked. Also maybe helped by the fact that 300 is actually a great film and Sucker Punch is merely a film with potential.

I wouldn't call 300 great. It's entertaining, and very visually stimulating, but I think it's also pretty dumb (and a little racist). Why do you think it is, I'm curious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slumcat

I think 300, Watchmen and Sucket Punch were extremely lurid unhinged films, and I like that. We don't see much of that today, films are safe, whereas these films swung for the fences, they were perverse, absurd, with wild invention and imagination.

I think not many people are bring such unadulterated vision to the screen these days. Maybe Lars von Trier is one and he obviously is working in a completely different register.

But I think such film-makers are doing something what not many film-makers are doing or can do.

I'll agree that Snyder is pretty uninhibited, but I don't think I'd call what he has "vision." Please excuse the use of this cliche, but I think he's a lot of style and no substance. He's very "go big or go home," but the stuff he goes big with seems to me to boil down to stuff he thinks looks cool. I don't see a lot of deep thought behind it.

^ As for Superman vs Zod, eh. Does anyone complain about how brief the final fight in Spider-Man 2 was? Pretty much no one does, because the great action scene was in the middle of the movie. Similarly, MOS could probably get away with NOT having a final fight, because the Smallville fight was near perfect, aside from being prolonged and Supes being a bit reckless.

The thing is, you get all of that if you have Superman and Zod fight briefly while the Phantom Zone is being activated that ends with Superman forcing Zod into the event horizon with the rest of the Kryptonians and trapping him in the Phantom Zone.

You didn't stipulate that a fight would be present while the PZ is being activated. From your post, it seemed that you wanted the fight simply cut and have Zod sucked in while he is in the ship:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

Superman's fight with Zod wasn't a resolution of the central conflict, it was tying up a loose end. A loose end that didn't even need to exist if they simply disposed of Zod with the rest of the Kryptonians via the Phantom Zone.

I would have been perfectly fine had it been structured how you know present it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

Maneuvering Zod away form the event horizon so he can be around afterword for one more huge mano-a-mano fight scene doesn't serve or resolve the central conflicts of the film any better than not doing it. It's extraneous.

So now it does resolve the central conflict? That was my only point. I never said it was the best way to do it, in fact, I agreed that it could have been better integrated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

Also, what with the sheer amount of collateral damage during that fight that Superman doesn't even address let alone tries to do anything about, I'd say the responsibility angle is a stretch.

That is a good point. Overall, I'm on the fence about the whole destruction discussion, but that could have helped ease that tension. As it stands now, the only moment that truly bugged me was his leaping over the tanker and letting it explode behind him -- that was negligent. I'm willing to give him more of a pass on the rest as it's his first outing and Zod is most definitely a handful. Also, Zod is the one that causes the majority of the destruction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

By that point we've already seen Superman and Zod go head to head several times. They go head to head during that sequence, when Superman crashes Zod's ship while the military is activating the Phantom Zone.

I'm really surprised that you would find a brief encounter in Smallville and a short discussion on the scout ship while Zod is in sitting in the driver's seat as sufficient battles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

Why do you think it would cheat the audience to have that confrontation during that sequence end with Zod being sent to the Phantom Zone? Why do you think having a longer one on one fight between just the two of them afterwards makes the movie stronger?

I think it would have cheated the audience if it went as you previously presented it. If their last interaction was in that scout ship, it simply would not have been enough. At that point the best action piece would have been Superman and the World Builder and there are plenty people here who are not fans of that.

Now had they battle head-to-head prior the PZ activation, then I'd be game.

^ As for Superman vs Zod, eh. Does anyone complain about how brief the final fight in Spider-Man 2 was? Pretty much no one does, because the great action scene was in the middle of the movie. Similarly, MOS could probably get away with NOT having a final fight, because the Smallville fight was near perfect, aside from being prolonged and Supes being a bit reckless.

Are you referring to the train fight? If so, that is directly tied to the resolution of the story and not in the middle of the movie. I believe there is only one brief scene between that set piece and the final interaction so the two feel a little more connected than MOS.

Also, that fight is Spidey v Ock in addition to the final conflict. Smallville is Superman v Zod very very briefly and then it's Superman v Faora and Nam-Ek. You wouldn't be given quite the same satisfaction as SM2.

You didn't stipulate that a fight would be present while the PZ is being activated. From your post, it seemed that you wanted the fight simply cut and have Zod sucked in while he is in the ship:

I would have been perfectly fine had it been structured how you know present it.

Well, what I hand in mind was:

1: Superman crashes into the scout ship (like in the movie).

2: Superman wrecks the cout ship (like in the movie).

3: Instead of just leaving Zod for no apparent reason, Superman tackles Zod out of the scout ship and forces him into the event horizon with the others.

How much a fight there should be between 2 and 3 is debatable but I honestly wouldn't mind if there wasn't much of one. For one, I don't really see why a sufficiently big/long fight between the main hero and the main villain is necessary (a lot of great action movies don't play out that way), and for one I kind of like the idea that Superman beats Zod by doing something clever like using the Phantom Zone drive instead of using his powers and raw brute force. If a central theme in the movie is Superman defining himself as a person in contrast to what Zod stands for, using his intellect which is a result largely of his upbringing to save the day instead of his Kyrptonian inherited powers for brute force the way Zod would is a little more thematically effective.

And, ultimately, does the number of punches thrown between the scout ship and the event horizon really matter? We end up in the same place anyway. As long as the pace is slow enough that people can take in what's happening (and really, Man of Steel's single biggest flaw is that they didn't do that throughout most of the film), then I'm all fine with making Zod's exit from the movie pretty quick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krumm

So now it does resolve the central conflict? That was my only point. I never said it was the best way to do it, in fact, I agreed that it could have been better integrated.

I don't think it does. The central conflict, while not very well defined I think, was already resolved by that point. Superman stopped the invasion, Superman had already decided to stand with humanity instead of against it, Superman destroyed any hope of using the codex to repopulate Krypton on Earth. Thematically, the conflict was resolved. Killing Zod was a loose end of the plot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krumm

That is a good point. Overall, I'm on the fence about the whole destruction discussion, but that could have helped ease that tension. As it stands now, the only moment that truly bugged me was his leaping over the tanker and letting it explode behind him -- that was negligent. I'm willing to give him more of a pass on the rest as it's his first outing and Zod is most definitely a handful. Also, Zod is the one that causes the majority of the destruction.

There's also the bit were Superman slams Zod's face into the side of a building and then drags it along at high speed, completely wrecking the outside of the building. And there's the fact that Superman doesn't even make a token attempt to force the fight to a less populated area.

And, really, the "it's his first outing" defense doesn't hold water for me. If you're going to pull that off, you then have to have Superman actually acknowledge that he made a lot of mistakes and has to do better when it comes to being Superman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krumm

I'm really surprised that you would find a brief encounter in Smallville and a short discussion on the scout ship while Zod is in sitting in the driver's seat as sufficient battles.

I'm not sure having a "sufficient battle" is something a movie necessarily needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krumm

I think it would have cheated the audience if it went as you previously presented it. If their last interaction was in that scout ship, it simply would not have been enough.

But why wouldn't it have been enough? What constitutes "enough?" Why is "enough" something that's needed in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krumm

At that point the best action piece would have been Superman and the World Builder and there are plenty people here who are not fans of that.

As it stands now, the only moment that truly bugged me was his leaping over the tanker and letting it explode behind him -- that was negligent.

This was an odd scene for me. Other than offering an eastern egg moment (the LexCorp logo on the tanker), it added no tension to the fight between Superman and Zod. Being the only other scene in Metropolis where Superman and Zod battled amongst people, it could have showcased Zod attempting to act on his threat and promise to eradicate every single human, and Superman attempting to stop him.

Instead, Superman posed an indirect threat to the people on the street by letting the tanker explode in fiery ball of destruction!

Again, don't remember it to well so I'm basically talking from a place of ignorance, but I think that once they got into orbit Superman would have had more of an opportunity to force the fight towards, like, the ocean, or the northern Canadian provinces where basically no one lives. Once you're that high up, going down at even a slightly different angle will take you hundreds if not thousands of miles away, but nope they just when exactly straight back down into Metropolis.